Class 3 Assignment - Experiment With Camera/Image Compression

720p, 15fps, 512kbs, CBR Control, Capture size 365KB

1080p, 25fps, 4m Bit Rate, VBR Control, Capture size 418KB

These are from a Foscam 19928P PTZ.  You can see the capture in 1080p is brighter with not much better quality than the 720p capture. The largest difference in this instance is the image size and band width.  The bandwidth listed below each picture is  the Bit Rate as set by the camera.  The actual average on the network including computer used for monitoring is the camera is roughly 700Kbs for the 720p setting and 4.6Mbs for the 1080p setting.  The settings below each picture are default settings but can be modified up or down in the camera software.

In different light conditions the 1080p setting is far more clear and detailed than the 720p setting.  Then I turned WDR off with the camera still aimed as shown and the 720p image remained much the same but darker and the 1080p image became softer, slightly more detailed and darkened in the shadows.

Highest Quality (227kb) no compression artifacts but storage is high

Medium Quality (49 kb) Quality is still good with HUGE storage savings

Low Quality (16) Poor image with very little change to storage size

The Medium quality image is a good balance of both image quality but also saving almost 180kb worth of storage 

Here is a REVO Ultra RUCB36-1 on maximum quality, h.264, 2592x1520, 20fps (black areas are privacy masks for those that don't know).  It uses an average bandwidth of about 13MB/s.  A 30 second video clip is just under 49.5MB.

Here is the same scene adjusted.  It's now averaging a little under 900Kbps.  H.265, same quality level settings Highest, smoothing level 7.  A 30 second clip is now 3.21MB, 16 times smaller and a little detail is lost.

Using the Advanced Encoding with h.265 Medium quality, it averages roughly 100Kbps or less on static scenes but increases as needed and not much difference between this and the above image.  File size will vary sue to activity but I have a 30 second clip that is 450KB, 111 times smaller than the previous settings which will conserve a lot of HDD space.

The image above is 241KB and the largest of the three pictures. This image almost looks the same to the compressed image below that is only 80.6KB. Not much difference in image quality but file size is three times the size in the image above than the one below.

The image above is of medium quality with a file size of 80.6KB. Fine details are starting to decrease ever so slightly with this file size.

This image is compressed low quality with a file size 35.1KB. Fine details are not seen very well in this image. Faces are very difficult to make out.

original image 61kb.

Medium compression 58kb minimal artifacting, still fairly usable image, but file size only slightly decreased

high compression 27kb. significant artifacting. image virtually unusable.

With further trial, a more usable image quality can be obtained between the low and medium quality to save more file size

Lowest Quality snapshot image at 1280x720 bitrate 4096 15fps   file size is 96kb

Highest quality snapshot image 2048x1536 bitrate 4096 15fps file size is 392k

The lower quality image has less fine detail.  The higher quality image has better detail and sharpness.  However if the goal is to just monitor the presence of cars then the lower quality image would be suitable.

Using a 12M (4000x3000) camera / H.264 / 15 FPS / VBR, I kept the same setting for all 3 images.  Quality was measured from low (1), medium (3), to high (6).

Low (201 KB)

Medium (730 KB)

High (7420 KB)

Can definitely capture decent information using the medium quality setting using a lot less bandwidth!

Canon VB-S30D Mk II

1920x1080

Max Quality Image: 228 KB

Min Quality Image: 60 KB

These screen captures were taken with a Sony SNC-VB630 running at full resolution (1920x1080) at 30fps with VBR.

Image 1: Quality level of 9, file size 237kb

Image 2: Quality level of 5, file size 209kb

Image 3: Quality level of 1, file size 197kb

The drop off from quality level 9 to 6 is only noticeable after zooming in on the image (especially on the diagonal lines). At a quality level of 1, text is still legible but there is quite a bit of edge distortion as well as some color abnormality.

Finally, not sure if I did something incorrect in the screen captures, but it's odd to me that there isn't much of a savings in going from a quality level of 9 to 1 -- only a reduction of around 17%. Perhaps it's the nature of the image coupled with a variation in how different manufacturer's compression algorithms function. For instance, in Erica's post above, she was able see a 90% reduction in going from high quality to medium quality.

Using a Meraki MV12 camera, there are options for 1080p and 720P resolution, with different video quality settings. They all use CBR, and H.264 codec.

The 1080p resolution has standard, enhanced, and high quality options. The compression changes on each, as does the fps, resulting in different bandwidth usage.

• Standard: 1038 kbps at 8fps
• Enhanced: 1562 kbps at 15fps
• High: 3138 kbps at 20fps

From “High” to “Enhanced, the bandwidth usage is cut in half. It is reduced by about a third when going from “High” to “Standard”.

When recording in 720p, there are two options: standard and enhanced.

• Standard: 535 kbps at 8fps
• Enhanced: 765 kbps at 15fps

In 720p resolution, the savings are not as drastic - it’s about a 30% reduction going from “Enhanced” to “Standard”.

1080p 20fps image, 3138 kbps

1080p 8fps image, 1038 kpbs

The above two screenshots show very little difference in image quality. They were both about 1.9MB file size, however, video streaming in the latter uses ⅓ of the bandwidth of the higher quality image. (If anyone notices that the two images are slightly different, it's because the camera was pulled of its normal spot for privacy.)

It’s also useful to note that because all video is stored on the camera itself, bandwidth is only used when viewing video, and not when video is being recorded. If video is being viewed locally, the system connects directly to the camera to pull the video, and uses no WAN bandwidth. WAN bandwidth is only used when viewing remotely.

Low Quality (27 KB) - File size is very small but  you can not see much details in this image.

Medium Quality (60 KB) - Image quality is good and you can see much more details. 

High Quality (242 KB) - Image quality looks the same as medium but the file size is much bigger.

High quality image 2,498 KB

Medium compression - 309KB:

The sky colour starts to show color bands, but details on the bus are still sharp, also the ground texture is still quite good. Huge saving on the file size.

High compression:

File size - 156KB, distinct graininess all through the image and some details being lost (for example the last hatch door rectangles). Also, colors of pixels getting distorted as visible around the rear tire of the bus (ground).

516 kb

281 kb

175 kb

High Quality 163kb ( no compression).

-While you are getting are very good image it will also take up a large amount of storage

Medium Quality 40.3kb 

-while still a good image it is using a substantially smaller amount of storage then the high quality

Low Quality 6kb

-While you are using very little storage the quality suffers to the point you can no longer make out faces.

High Quality 163kb ( no compression).

-While you are getting are very good image it will also take up a large amount of storae

Medium Quality  

Taken from my daughter's iPhone - all images of my adorable grand children are 1200x900 -

Original Image, file size 941kB

File Size Reduced to 88.2kB - No noticeable difference to me. Big bandwidth and storage savings (1/10th of original)

Last Picture's File Size is 30kB. Great savings in bandwidth and storage but noticeable artifacting which first appeared on carpet and walls. As compression increased, artifacting appeared on faces and clothing.

High quality 241 KB

Low quality 30.6 KB

Medium quality 67.4 KB, usable image with good file size

Im am using our 8mp cameras. I did notice a huge difference in bandwidth from the highest to the lowest setting. Didnt see a huge difference in quality when using the different settings. 

3840x2160 30fps, bitrate 8192 type:VBR H.265 File size:4.2m

3840x2160 30fps, bitrate 2048 Type: VBR H.265 File size:3.8

1920x1080, 1.81MB

1280x720, 833KB

640x360, 230KB

All 3 images useable if you are simply monitoring occupancy.  If you want the ability to read the writing on the PVC pipe, you need the 1080 resolution or max quality for this camera.  In all 3 images, you can almost pick out the mess that needs to be cleaned up.  In the lowest quality image, you might mistake the wire's shadow cast on the door as some spray paint mark.  This is much clearer in the other two though.

High quality: 241KB

Medium quality: 44KB

Low quality: 29KB

Going down from high to low quality we can still have usable images with huge bandwidth and storage savings. Moreover, there is no point in going very close to the line between usable and unusable image, because the savings becomes marginal, whereas quality gets greatly worse.

High Quality 254KB

good quality takes up large amount of space.

Medium Quality 72KB

great quality that saves a lot of space. 

Low Quality 38KB

poor quality that uses minimal space.

High Quality (291KB) 0% compression, 30fps, default bit rate

Medium Quality (34KB) 50% compression, 30fps, default bit rate

Low Quality (10KB) 100% compression, 30fps, default bit rate

Based on the above resolution 800 x 600 images, it can be seen that having lesser compression will give better quality image but producing a bigger file size. From the picture, in high quality it produces an image with sharp details. From the medium quality image if examines carefully there is slight pixilation. From the low quality image, the pixilation is rather obvious and the words below cannot be distinguished. 

I take a screenshot with an Axis Q1615 MKII at 800x450 16:9

And then at 1920x1080 16:9

The first is 133KB and the second is 243KB, the image is much better with high resolution but it consume almost the double in bandwidht

High quality: 227.1 kB; great detail with large file size

Medium Quality: 40.9 kB; acceptable detail with smaller file size

Low Quality: 15.5 kB; small file size but cannot make out faces/details

High quality, 227MB, very clear but large file size

Medium Quality, 60MB. Still Pretty clear with substantial file size improvement

Low quality. Very small file size at 15.5KB but also very poor quality.

High quality higher size file 241KB

Medium quality Medium size file 59.9KB

Low quality smaller size file 30.6KB

The higher the quality the higher the file size.the smaller the file size the lower the quality of the image.

Highest Quality (224kb) 

Medium Quality (60 kb) Quality is still good 

Low Quality (16) Poor image with very little change to storage size

The medium quality image has a good balance